DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4679#0316
29o IX. PHRYGIAN CITIES ON PISIDIAN FRONTIER.
Amelia Pausteina was owner in 217-8. She bears the title KparLarr/,
which marks her high rank, and would suit the historical Faustina
until she became empress in 221. Little is known of the early history
of the empress except that she was great-granddaughter of Marcus
Aurelius, through his daughter Fadilla 1 who married Cn. Claudius
Severus cos. I 163, cos. II 173. Let us now try whether any further
inferences can be drawn from our hypothesis (which is much strength-
ened by the remarkable coincidence revealed by this inscription) that
the historical Annia Faustina, wife of Pomponius Bassus shortly
before 221, is identical with the A(n)nia Aurelia Pausteina, owner of
the Pisidian estates in 217-8, whose right passed to Pomponia Ummidia, -
apparently her daughter by a husband named Pomponius. There
seems to be only one difficulty,—why should the daughter of Pompo-
nius and Annia Aurelia Pausteina take the name Ummidia? We
must suppose that Pausteina, being descended from the Faustina
Ummidia Cornificia who had previously owned the estates, gave to
her daughter a name that was in the family, even though she is not
recorded to have actually borne it herself.
There can be no doubt that the historical Annia Faustina must
have been a young woman in- 221, both because Elagabalus is likely
to have married a young woman, and because her grandmother
Fadilla was only born in 152. We shall now turn to two other
inscriptions which belong to the interval between this last (dated
217-8 a.d.) and the first, which mentioned the heirs of Faustina
Ummidia Cornificia as owners ; and from them we shall find that
Pausteina was not owner in 207 a.d., and must therefore have only
recently succeeded to the estates in 217 a.d., and therefore was prob-
ably a young (or at least not an elderly) woman in that year, which
increases the resemblance between her and the historical Annia
Faustina.
127. (R. 1886). Karamanli. Two parts of one stone, published by
Sterrett nos. 44 and 46 as two separate inscriptions. I have completed
the text by digging round one of the stones. ' Ayadr] Tvyj) • 'irovs pirfl' ■
01 fj.v(TTaL rod Albs Zaovd£ov2 vrrep crcQTrjpias avrSiv Kal rod Srjjxov
'Op/u.r]Xicov kcu craTTqpias ' Avvias 'Pavardv-qs Kal Tifiepiov KXavSiov
kirl hnrponov KpiTofiovXov • enl Trpay/iarevTaiu ' AfiacrKavTov Kal 'Av-
Oivov Kal MapKeWioovos • kiri fiicrdcDTcov [K\av8?^iov 'AfiaaKavrov Kal
MrjviSos NeiKaSov'HpaKXeiSov Kal NeiKaSov 81s ■ Itparevoi'Tos KiSpa-
\iavros Sis Kal 'EXttl'Sos rfjs yvvaiKo? avrov: then follows a list of
1 Borghesi V 433 argues that the wife 2 This was apparently the reading on
of Claudius was Fadilla. the stone, cp. inscr. 97.
Amelia Pausteina was owner in 217-8. She bears the title KparLarr/,
which marks her high rank, and would suit the historical Faustina
until she became empress in 221. Little is known of the early history
of the empress except that she was great-granddaughter of Marcus
Aurelius, through his daughter Fadilla 1 who married Cn. Claudius
Severus cos. I 163, cos. II 173. Let us now try whether any further
inferences can be drawn from our hypothesis (which is much strength-
ened by the remarkable coincidence revealed by this inscription) that
the historical Annia Faustina, wife of Pomponius Bassus shortly
before 221, is identical with the A(n)nia Aurelia Pausteina, owner of
the Pisidian estates in 217-8, whose right passed to Pomponia Ummidia, -
apparently her daughter by a husband named Pomponius. There
seems to be only one difficulty,—why should the daughter of Pompo-
nius and Annia Aurelia Pausteina take the name Ummidia? We
must suppose that Pausteina, being descended from the Faustina
Ummidia Cornificia who had previously owned the estates, gave to
her daughter a name that was in the family, even though she is not
recorded to have actually borne it herself.
There can be no doubt that the historical Annia Faustina must
have been a young woman in- 221, both because Elagabalus is likely
to have married a young woman, and because her grandmother
Fadilla was only born in 152. We shall now turn to two other
inscriptions which belong to the interval between this last (dated
217-8 a.d.) and the first, which mentioned the heirs of Faustina
Ummidia Cornificia as owners ; and from them we shall find that
Pausteina was not owner in 207 a.d., and must therefore have only
recently succeeded to the estates in 217 a.d., and therefore was prob-
ably a young (or at least not an elderly) woman in that year, which
increases the resemblance between her and the historical Annia
Faustina.
127. (R. 1886). Karamanli. Two parts of one stone, published by
Sterrett nos. 44 and 46 as two separate inscriptions. I have completed
the text by digging round one of the stones. ' Ayadr] Tvyj) • 'irovs pirfl' ■
01 fj.v(TTaL rod Albs Zaovd£ov2 vrrep crcQTrjpias avrSiv Kal rod Srjjxov
'Op/u.r]Xicov kcu craTTqpias ' Avvias 'Pavardv-qs Kal Tifiepiov KXavSiov
kirl hnrponov KpiTofiovXov • enl Trpay/iarevTaiu ' AfiacrKavTov Kal 'Av-
Oivov Kal MapKeWioovos • kiri fiicrdcDTcov [K\av8?^iov 'AfiaaKavrov Kal
MrjviSos NeiKaSov'HpaKXeiSov Kal NeiKaSov 81s ■ Itparevoi'Tos KiSpa-
\iavros Sis Kal 'EXttl'Sos rfjs yvvaiKo? avrov: then follows a list of
1 Borghesi V 433 argues that the wife 2 This was apparently the reading on
of Claudius was Fadilla. the stone, cp. inscr. 97.